Feedback for June 2002

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

How come you
don't have any information concerning the aquatic ape
theory?

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

No one has
yet contributed an article for inclusion on this site. But
we do have a link to an article critiquing the aquatic ape
theory in detail. See Aquatic
Ape Theory: Sink or Swim?

Feedback Letter

From:

Sarah

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I am a
Canadian student, researching my final paper for Biology. I
have been combing the internet for countless hours in
search of an interesting topic in relation to evolution.
Your site is the most interesting, informative and
*understandable* that i've come across yet. I particularly
enjoyed the "Evidence for Evolution: An Eclectic Survey".
It is a facinating collection of sarticle summaries. Thanks
for helping me with my research!

Feedback Letter

From:

Jamie Gaffney

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Hi

After spending a while in your site (highly recommended,
btw), I can't help feeling a sense of cognitive
dissonance.

Is it just me, or is exolution through natural selection
the only scientific theory to suffer such ill-informed
attack? What if people objected to (for example) general
relativity or quantum electrodynamics?

After all, both relativity and quantum theory challenge
our long-held views on the structure and behaviour of the
universe, but I'm not aware of any pressure groups trying
to remove them from the curriculum.

...but if anyone *does* know, I will go and hide in the
corner with a dunce hat on ;-)

I've spent quite a while 'lurking' on talk.origins
(terminal shyness), but it seems that the 'evolutionists'
(what an expression! do people who accept general
relativity get called 'relativists'?) not only provide
evidence and logic to back up their argument, but manage to
conduct themselves with dignity, courtesy and good
humour.

In contrast, I've noticed that the creationist arguments
seem to fall into a certain number of categories:

...and finally... it pains me to say this as I do not
like citicising people - it seems that Creationist
arguments are fundamentally dishonest.

I didn't like writing that but I feel I had to. I do not
pretend to the same level of expertise as the regular t.o.
contributors, but they have always impressed me with their
use of logic, reason, (cited) evidence and good humour. On
the creationist side I have seen little but childish
abuse.

Creationists
perceive biology as the biggest scientific threat to their
religious beliefs, and therefore it gets most of the
attention. But they spend time attacking other branches of
science (such as geology) as well. Some creationists seem
to perceive relativity as a threat to their belief in
absolute (moral) frames of reference, because it implies
that there's no such thing as an absolute (physics) frame
of reference.

You'll see the occasional clumsy swipe at physics from
the creationists. But it is usually produced by a "minor
player" without serious formal training in the field -- and
it would not be taken seriously by the few creationists
with real physics backgrounds. See, for example: "A Call
For Reformation in Modern Science" by Charles W. Lucas, Jr.
(Proceedings of the 1986 International Conference on
Creationism, vol. 1, pp. 83-87). Lucas' abstract reads
in part:

[...] the scientific community has claimed
credibility for many new theories comprising much of modern
science that can not logically qualify as science. These
theories include the theory of relativity, the theory of
quantum mechanics, the Dirac Theory of the atom
[...]

In my opinion, a paper of the quality of that one would
not pass scientific peer review. However, far too many
creationists appear willing to overlook shoddy work as long
as the result supports their cause. (In the long run, I
think it does their cause more harm than good.)

Feedback Letter

From:

Miguel A. Garcia

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

A brief
comment on a recently published feedback for April, 2002.

The feedback was from a Mr. Borger, who seemed to imply
in his post that he was a member of the Science faculty at
Sydney University (a prestigous center for higher learning
in this country).

I wish to make clear that Mr. Borger is not now and
never has been a member of the science faculty at the
University of Sydney.

In fact I rather question the description he uses for
himself as a "Molecular Biologist".

Just wanted to set the record straight.

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Peter Borger
is listed
as a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Pharmacology
at the University of Sydney. His specialty appears to be
respiratory illness, not evolution.

Feedback Letter

From:

michael joyce

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

thank god,
uh i mean thank goodness, that a site like this exists - i
just found it and i'll be back

While my
article might do with an update, I think that Humphreys'
new entry into the debate is not as significant as he makes
it out to be.

The main conclusion of "
The Earth's Magnetic Field is Still Losing Energy" is
stated in the title, namely that the total energy of the
field appears to be decreasing. Maybe he is right. But his
conclusion, that the Earth's magnetic field is young, does
not necessarily follow from that observation.

Let's assume that Humphreys is right, and the total
energy in the field has decreased, and is decreasing even
as we speak. So, how does one decide what the field was
doing, before there were any IGRF data to analyze? The data
themselves don't carry any information along those lines,
so one must adopt a model which will answer the question.
Humphreys has adopted his own model, and has assumed that
the Earth is young, and that the field has decayed
constantly at the same rate. Hence, the argument that the
data show a young field and/or Earth cannot be true. Only
the model can be depended upon to do that (which is of
course true whether one believes the Earth to be "young" ot
"old").

The evolutionary competition will hold that the energy
fluctuates with time, sometimes going up, and sometimes
going down, depending on the details of how magnetic fields
are generated in the deep Earth. Such a model is every bit
as compatible with the data, and with Humphreys' own
conclusion that the total energy is on the decrease, as is
his own model. The data cannot discriminate between
them.

So we look elsewhere, to see if there is a way to
discriminate. We have a dynamo theory in place, which
explains in detail how the Earth's magnetic field is
generated. Humphreys does not criticize, or even mention
standard dynamo theory in his latest paper (at least not
that I saw). But that standard theory is quite good at
generating Earth type magnetic fields from first
principles, and it also generates physically realistic
models for magnetic field reversals (as far as I know,
Humphreys does not dispute the fact of field reversals,
only the time scale involved).

I would say that Humphreys' new paper changes little, if
anything. We are still unable to distinguish, from these
observd data alone, between a "young" or "old" magnetic
field. Humphreys still has not produced a model dynamo that
is as detailed, or as powerful, as the standard theory. In
short, Neither Humphreys, nor anyone else, has yet come up
with any good reason for throwing out the theory we have,
in favor of the theory they have. He still has to come up
with a better explanation than the standard.

Feedback Letter

From:

Marjorie

Comment:

As a Roman
Catholic I find it disturbing to read so many comments
against evolution from "Christians". There needs to be an
understanding that the creation of man in God's image
refers too the soul, not the body. That is a matter for
theologians and philosophers to discuss; flesh and bone is
a matter for scientists. I have had the privilege of
working with many biological anthropologists from the
University of Michigan and have known many others when they
were students there. During that time I posited my own view
of creation and evolution as follows. At some point in the
far distant past, God snapped His metaphorical fingers
(being non-corporeal He doesn't really have fingers, nor a
sex for that matter) and the Big Bang occurred. He went off
and created some other universes and before He knew it a
couple or three billion years had passed. He took a look at
our universe and decided that one of the forms of life that
had sprung up on our planet was different from the others
and He gave that creature a soul and two gifts- -reason and
curiosity. He then whispered a question "How did I do it?"
And since that time, man has been searching for the answer
to that question.

What other creature wants to know where he came from?
Personally I think those who equate evolution with atheism
are refusing the gift of reason. I think God expects more
of us. But that's just me, I guess.

You have a fine site with easy to understand
explanations.

Feedback Letter

From:

Eileen Flanagan

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I'd like to
commend you for the rational and methodical way you've
presented the information on this site.

I've been running into a gaggle (my term for a group) of
creationists on the X-Files Message Board lately, and this
site has given me lots of useful information to present to
counter their arguments. Keep up the good work. Thanks.

Sincerely,

Eileen Flanagan New York City

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

The correct
collective noun for a group of creationists has to be a
"boggle" of creationists. Otherwise, many thanks.

Feedback Letter

From:

E. Moore

Comment:

I would have
posted this to the newsgroup, but am unable to access it.

I saw something last week on PBS that rendered me
completely speechless. PBS has been running a series about
evolution, and one of the parts was called "What About
God?" or something along those lines. In it, they showed
creationist rallies, where people all band together and
come up with excuses to not believe what science is telling
them. I'm sure you're all familiar with this sort of thing.
They sing songs about how science is all wrong, spew
half-truths and whole lies and tell their children to tell
their science teachers how wrong evolution is. Some man
named Ken Ham (I think; maybe it was Kevin) was giving the
"lecture", and these people were just eating it up. Despite
the fact that I've debated with a few creationists, that
moment was the first time I actually realized the extent of
people's blind following. I could not believe what I was
hearing and seeing. Then I heard that there are people who
home-school their kids so they don't have to be exposed to
evolution science. Is anything being done to ensure that
children *are* taught real science? I know that there are
on-going debates and court cases about the prevention of
evolution being taught, but is anyone doing anything to
ensure that science is being taught as it should be?

Once again, I would like to applaud this site's
contributors and creators. This is a fine resource...thank
you very much for creating it!

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Thank you so
much for your kind words.

To access the talk.origins newsgroup, try clicking on this link. If that doesn't
work, you can access it through a Web-based newsserver,
such as Google
Groups.

The section of the PBSEvolution
series you were watching was indeed titled "What
About God?" The person depicted was
Ken Ham, who is the founder of an organization called
Answers in
Genesis. AiG's American headquarters is located in
Florence, Kentucky, near Cincinnati, Ohio.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I believe in
creation because i think all the scientist lie and are
abunch of hoaxs. Not only do i believe it because of the
scientists but because of the Bible. It shows you all the
real evidence for creation in it. Evolution is a story,made
by satan,to blind people from God. And those who believe it
are plain STUPID. And here is my question for the coward
who answers these questions.

Question: How did we evolve from apes if there are still
TONS of them on Earth?? --oh yah and i know all the real
evidence for creation and they don't lie...YOU do! And if i
get on here and this question isn't answered....i know that
you don't know the question and know you can't answer it ya
little sissy.

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Thank you
for your feedback. It eloquently demonstrates the
insufficiency of the Bible.

The "lies" and "hoaxes" you refer to are, of course,
available for everyone to see at public libraries. They are
well indexed and referenced in a variety of ways, and
thousands of librarians all over the world are ready to
help you find them. There are even organizations such as Earthwatch and UREP that encourage
interested laypeople to join scientific expeditions
themselves, see how the research is done, and join in the
actual work. Few other fields go to so much effort to make
their "lies" (other people call it "evidence") so
public.

I'm sure you can think of several diverse reasons why
some feedback questions go unanswered, so there is no need
to address that part of your message.

One last question for you to think about: How could the
King James Version of the Bible be translated from the
Vulgate if there are still new copies of the Vulgate
around?

Feedback Letter

From:

Ville Ruokonen

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Two
questions;

1. How accurate/reliable are the chapters regarding the
theory of evolution in Ian Stewart / David Cohen / Terry
Pratchett book The Science of Discworld? How would
you rate the book in general, regarding the various
disciplines of science and philosophy?

2. How is it possible to be an atheistic creationst? A
fairly aggressive Finnish creationist known as 'TJT2' has
advanced the idea that the ToE is rejected not only by
Christians, but also by Hindus, Muslims (these are obvious)
and atheists! The latter is quite baffling. Of
course, if one considers Hoyle & Wikramasinghe and
other panspermia advocates as atheistic creationists, it
holds true, but I would like to know if the experienced
Talk.Origins crew has encountered sincere atheists who also
are creationists.

P.S. Ed Conrad doesn't count for the latter. I don't
know what in the world he's pushing, but it sure ain't
atheism.

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

The
Pratchett story is not reliable. Wizards, so far as we
know, had nothing to do with evolution, although there is
some evidence that teachers really do "lie to children" in
the sense of simplifying things for easier digestion.

The stuff about Roundworld, though, is pretty good,
although they do report as scientific consensus some ideas
that are far from certainly accepted (such as the idea that
having a big Moon is what caused us to have a liveable
atmosphere) and they tend to use a notion of evolution
known as "gradism", which briefly supposes that evolution
tends to generate new grades of organisation (a view I am
not comfortable with myself).

The origins of life discussion is not bad, although it,
too, is incomplete (hey, this is a popular work; what can
you ask for?). However, I thoroughly recommend the chapter
"The Descent of Darwin". Also I particularly like the
dialogue on pages 240-241 about how the best achievement
that the dinosaurs had was to not die for 100 million
years:

'Not dying out is some kind of achievement, is it?' said
the Lecturer in Recent Runes.

'Best kind there is, sir.' [Rincewind]

As to atheistic antievolutionism (which is not quite the
same as creationism - the absence of evolutionism is not
ipso facto creationism), this is an old view - at least
back to the French enlightenment. It is equivalent to the
idea of Aristotle that the world is static and without
beginning. But less generally, when people say they reject
the "theory of Evolution" it usually means that they reject
the idea of evolution by natural selection, not common
descent. I am not aware of a single thinker who rejects
common descent for any reason other than a religious
one.

Whatever Ed Conrad is pushing, I'm fairly sure it is not
relevant to theism or atheism...

Feedback Letter

From:

James the evo dude

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I have been
studying the evolution vs. creationism argument for almost
half a year, and I am convinced that evolution is correct.
Almost every one of the creationist's arguments against
evolution seem hopeless and incorrect. Almost all of the
creationists 'best evidence' against evolution has been
proven to be wrong. However, I have not found a good
response to the 'how can mutations add additional
information?' argument. Creationists insist that mutations
can't do that, and that means that 'molecules to man'
evolution could not have happened since 'molecules to man'
evolution would require tons of new information being
added. Could you please explain to me how mutations can add
additional information?

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

The February 2001 Post of
the Month from the talk.origins newsgroup
discusses information theory and the total hash that
creationists make of it when analyzing evolution.
Essentially, "information" in the colloquial sense that
creationists use is not the same thing as "information" in
information theory.

But even using the simplistic view of information that
creationists use, it takes no effort to show that the
"mutations can't add information" argument is utter
hogwash. Consider a population of identical,
asexually-reproducing organisms with the following genetic
code:

ATTGTCAAG

We know that one possible mutation is for a section of
the genome to be duplicated. So let's say that one of the
organisms in the population has an offspring with a
duplication mutation, like so:

ATTGTCAAGAAGAAG

This organism then reproduces. Its offspring has another
mutation, one that substitutes several bases for their
complements (T for A, C for G):

ATTGTCAAGATCTTG

That offspring reproduces. Now instead of one population
of organisms with genome ATTGTCAAG, we have three:

One with genome ATTGTCAAG.

One with genome ATTGTCAAGAAGAAG.

One with genome ATTGTCAAGATCTTG.

Even under the creationist idea of information, there is
clearly "new information" from the first genome to the
third. And it doesn't stop there; one could easily envision
other duplications and point mutations such that the
"final" genome looked nothing like the "original."

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I read your
first point of the five misconceptions of evolution, and I
must agree I believed with a first glance that those five
misconceptions were the basis for the untrue theory of
evoltuion. However, the first point kind of startled me.
You stated that evolution was “as a change in the
gene pool of a population over time,” however an
insect becoming immuned to a pesticide is microevolution,
and as a Creationist, I believe Microevolution occurs
continually. But explain how another species is created.
The bug that was immuned to the pesticide is still the same
bug, is it not? Is it any closer to becoming anything
outside of the realm of its species. And the answer is no.
A monkey can be mutated, immuned, or manipulated a thousand
different ways.... but I want to see a monkey, that
isn’t a monkey. That is what evoltuion is. It is the
changing of one species to another. And that is why we call
Evolution a theory. By definition a “science”
is something that can described, duplicated, and observed.
If the evolution of a monkey to a man, can’t be
duplicated within our amazing abilities, then can it really
exist on a larger scale? And, without sounding at all
argumentative, if we are the greatest on the evoltuionary
ladder, descending from monkeys, then why do we still have
monkeys? I do not wish at all to cause an argument. I love
all opinions and outlooks on all matters, and I would love
to hear from you.

Response

From:

Edward E. Max

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Your
definition of science - “something that can be
described, duplicated and observed” - is one that
many scientists would reject. Your definition would exclude
astronomy (can’t be duplicated) and theoretical
physics (can’t be observed), and a variety of other
scientific disciplines.

Here is an alternative view of science (one of several
alternatives). A scientist has a question about something.
He (or she) considers several alternative possible answers
(hypotheses). He tries to figure out how each hypothesis
might imply a prediction that he could test by seeking new
data. He collects data that would test the various
predictions, and checks how well those data fit with the
predictions of each hypothesis. When he has found data
consistent with one hypothesis but not with a second
hypothesis, he concludes that the first hypothesis is
better supported by evidence. He publishes his data and
conclusions in a scientific journal. This is the paradigm
used by astronomers who can’t do experiments with
stars, and the paradigm used by evolutionists who
can’t go back in time.

Let’s look at your examples and see what evolution
predicts and what the data are. Does evolution or creation
predict that an insect exposed to a pesticide should turn
into a different species? Neither model makes this
prediction, so that fact that pesticides don’t lead
to new insect species is consistent with both evolution and
creation (i.e., this is not a prediction that distinguishes
the two hypotheses). Does evolution predict that because we
have “amazing abilities” we should be able to
duplicate the evolution of a monkey by laboratory
experiments? It does not, since evolution is supposed to
act over millions of years, and regardless of our abilities
we can’t do experiments that take that long.

Does evolution hypothesize that humans evolved from
monkey species living today? It does not. It hypothesizes
that modern monkey species and humans both evolved from a
common ancestral population that lived millions of years
ago and split into two separate populations, one of which
evolved into modern monkeys and one of which evolved into
humans. Does this model predict that there should be no
modern monkeys? It does not, though many creationists
mistakenly confuse the common ancestral animals (which are
all dead) with monkeys alive today simply because the
common ancestral species probably looked more like a modern
monkey than like a human.

So you have discussed some “predictions”
that don’t really follow from evolution or that
don’t distinguish evolution from creation.

But the hypothesis of evolution does make some
predictions that are different from expectations of the
creation model, and testing these predictions can help
scientists distinguish which model is better supported by
the evidence. One evolutionary prediction is that we should
find fossils of extinct species that have some
characteristics of monkeys and some characteristics of
humans, and those intermediate fossils should be from
geologic layers that were laid down after the presumed
common ancestor of humans and monkeys. Such fossils have
been found. They don’t prove evolution, but they are
consistent with the evolutionary prediction. See Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human
Evolution Another prediction of evolution is that
useless DNA mutations or virus insertions that altered the
DNA of common ancestors of humans and monkeys should have
been inherited by both humans and modern monkeys. Such
shared mutations have been found. They don’t prove
evolution but they are consistent with the evolutionary
prediction. See Plagiarized Errors
and Molecular Genetics Another Argument in the
Evolution-Creation Controversy. The creation model
makes neither of these predictions, so these sorts of data
favor the evolution model. A nice list of evolution
predictions and evidence that tests them is found at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The
Scientific Case for Common Descent. All of these
WebPages include references to the original scientific
journal articles so you can check for yourself how strong
the evidence is.

One version of the creation model includes the notion
that all animal species were created within one week and
lived simultaneously. This model would be supported if
remains of humans (and other modern species) were found in
the same geologic layers as the remains of dinosaurs or
trilobites; but such remains are found only in very
different layers. This evidence doesn’t disprove the
creation model, but it does massively contradict it.
Creationists who try to explain away this contradiction use
a variety of vague ad hoc theories (“hydrodynamic
sorting” or “selective escape” from
floods) that they have never tried to validate by testing
how animal remains sink or float, or by studying what
happens to different species of animals in floods.

It would be nice to see proof - like monkeys evolving
into humans over millions of years - but we can’t get
such proof, so we rely on the scientific, if indirect,
approach of testing predictions that follow from competing
hypotheses. We are left with a body of published scientific
evidence that supports (not proves) evolution, and a body
of evidence that contradicts several creationist
models.

Feedback Letter

From:

K M

Comment:

People who
believe in evolution often comment that intelligent design
is a "comfortable myth." In fact, intelligent design is not
at all comfortable. If one believes in intelligent design,
then he or she must also believe that they are responsible
to something or someone bigger;responsible for their
actions.Isn't it much more "comfortable" to believe that it
is "our" life and we are responsible to no one? I think
so.

Response

From:

Ed Brayton

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

I don't
think it necessarily follows from the premise that life on
earth was designed that therefore we are "responsible" to
whatever designed us. I know that those who believe in
Intelligent Design all believe this to be true, but they do
so because of their religious presupppositions, not because
it is a logical consequence of the belief in intelligent
design. One can as easily envision something creating life
on earth as an expirement to observe, with no thought to
correct behavior or any concern with human actions or fates
at all. The belief that we are responsible to a creator is
the result of religious conceptions about the nature of the
creator, not the necessary result of the mere act of
creation.

Feedback Letter

From:

Valerie Burgess

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

In response
to Clay Schoentrup:

You are mistaken, misinformed, or simply ignoring the
fundamental belief of Christianity when you say that to be
christian is to believe everything that is in the bible. To
be christian is to believe in a premise set forth by the
new testament that Jesus was God's son, he lived without
sin, died as a sacrifice, and rose from the dead. That is
all that it means when a person says he or she is
christian. Depending on which sect you were raised in, you
might add in more, but the one unifying belief to all
christian churches is that one.

You are absolutely correct when you say that the bible
was written by men. It was written by men to teach people
about God, the world, and themselves. If you've ever
attended a university, you know that every professor has a
different way of explaining the same concept. That is why
there are contradictions throughout the bible. It was
written by lots of different people with many different
perspectives on two different religions (first Judaism and
later Christianity).

If you want to focus on Genesis, though, I don't need to
argue with you, both sides have argued that do death. I
just want you to think about one question. Imagine yourself
7,000 years ago living with a tribe of nomadic people. You
had an idea, a dream, a vision (whatever you want to call
it) of evolution. You make observations (just like Darwin
did) and it seems to make sense, but all you have a limited
knowledge of the world, no knowledge of microbes, and no
reference for a timeframe in which all of this happened.
You know it must have been a long time because nobody you
know remembers the animals being different, but your
language only has numbers to go up to 100,000. How would
you explain evolution to your contempories? I challenge you
to think about that. I think that based on only the
knowledge they had to work with back then, you would end up
with something a lot like the story in genesis. First there
was nothing, life came out of the sea, onto land, and
eventually into the air and asexual reproduction came
before sexual.

Feedback Letter

From:

David Radford

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

On your
December 2000 Post of the month, Sherlock Holmes is said to
have lived at 222B Baker Street. The esteemed fictional
detective lived instead at 221B Baker Street. A small
detail, but Holmes would be appalled, if he existed.
:)

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

You mean he
didn't? There's a lot of documentary evidence...

Feedback Letter

From:

Kristy

Comment:

Im not sure
if this has been brought forth befor. Im not a fast reader
and It took me a while just to get throught a few pages,
And I found it to be a waste of my time and alot of
garbage. So needles to say I didnt get through all of them.
For one it doesnt matter what you or I think, God said if
we do not believe we will perish (Hell), but if we believe
then we will have everlasting life(Heaven). We will all one
day face God and our judgment day, even if you are an
unbeliever. And second I dont see how anyone could think
that we came from apes. If we started out as Apes we would
still be starting out as Apes. Just like the butterfly, or
The frog... A butterfly still comes from a caterpeller and
a frog still comes from a tadpool. But you know when I gave
birth to both of my children they did not come out as
little apes they where human just like I am and have always
been. Yes I do believe that we slowly change in some ways,
but that is not by evolution, that is by mixing our jeans,
such as a white person with a black person and so on. And
the same goes for animals they also mix breed and their
colors, size and shapes change. It has to do with mixing
the jeans and not evolution.

Feedback Letter

From:

Jason Keuning

Comment:

I read the
Creationist Exposed article, and copied the information to
ICR. Here is part of their response.

>Dear Mr. Keuning,

Thank you for contacting the Institute for Creation
Research. I have read your email and understand that you
seek an answer to the following question:

A 1: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We
have compared your statements to those contained in our
current revised booklet Copyright @ 1986 Revised 1994,
Published by Gospel Tract Distributory and they differ in
each case except where we disagree with your statements as
mentioned herein.

Please advise as to the Publisher (was it Master
Books?), the Copyright date, and revision date so that we
can determine the cause of this misunderstanding.

In regard to the Plimer tape, the Cambrian explosion
does consist of highly complex forms of life. Proof of this
is found in a new video offered by ICR called "Unlocking
the Mystery of Life." Billions of highly complex
animals...trilobites, brachiopods, corals, worms,
jellyfish, etc...just suddenly appear, with no signs of
gradual development from lower forms.

Watch the video, and then let us have your opinion on
the above statement! Our on-line store is located at
www.icr.org.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

As I
understand it, if origin is by creation then it implies the
presence of a God. Humanity from the earliest of times has
been consistent in believing the prssence of God the
Creator. By contrast science has been fickle. 'Scientific'
theories about the nature of the world we live in has
changed from Earth being flat to Earth being the center of
the universe and so on to the present vision of the
universe. from the atom theories to the prsent multi
particle thories It appears to me that the consistency of
common human belief in a God that persists in his brain
should be evaluated seriously. Perhaps there exists a
mathametician with the audacity to generate an analysis
which proves or disproves the common belief.

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

First,
creation doesn't necessitate a god. In some other myths,
creation just happens on its own, or the creator is a human
or a personified animal such as Coyote or Raven. Second,
science is far from fickle. New theories mostly add on to
present theories; actual reversals of established ideas are
relatively rare. And throughout all of science, the aim is
to be consistent with the evidence, so even the changed
ideas show a deeper consistency.

(Also, changes from flat to spherical earth and from
geocentricity to heliocentricity are not fickleness in
science but more an adoption of it. And spericity of the
earth has been the dominant belief since the ancient
Greeks.)

All that aside, I agree that persistent beliefs deserve
serious evalutation. Such an evaluation has begun in David
E. Jones' book An Instinct For Dragons. Jones notes
the consistency of common human belief in dragons and makes
a case that it originated as a result of predation on our
ancestors by snakes, large cats, and birds of prey. Other
researchers are looking for a basis for belief in God; for
example in Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the
Biology of Belief by Newberg, D'Aquili, and Rause; and
The "God" Part of the Brain by Matthew Alper. The
field is still young, but expect more from it in the
future.

Feedback Letter

From:

Roxanne Daly

Comment:

You people
are full of crap and you probably will not post this
message because it might hurt your feelings. How do you
explain creationism? ~It's called faith! Plus there is so
much evidence behind it thats there is definetly more proof
of creationism than evolution. I have videotapes of
scientific points on creationism for those of you who think
seeing is beleiving. I have faith I don't need scientific
evidence to prove creationism because I know there is a
higher being and that is God~ the creator of the universe
and everything inside and outside of it.

Response

From:

Ed Brayton

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

On the
contrary, we WILL post this message because it shows just
exactly how vacuous much of our feedback is every month.
Silly me, having spent so many years actually studying the
evidence and making logical deductions and all I needed to
know was that you have faith, I'm full of crap and you have
videotapes of "scientific points".

Feedback Letter

From:

Ken Reffner

Comment:

Robert V.
Gentry studied radiohalos in granite rock that were formed
by polonium 218. The only way to get a polonium halo is if
the rock was created cold. There would be no halos present
if the rock slowly cooled from a liquid to a solid due to
the very short half-life of polonium. Many evolutionists
claim that the earth was once a molten mass. How can this
be possible? Also, when granite rock is melted and then
cooled back to a solid it always forms into rhyolite, not
granite. If the earth was once a molten mass, then how can
granite exist?

Response

From:

Mike Dunford

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

There are
two Polonium Halo FAQs
available on the archive right now which should answer your
first question.

To answer your second question, when molten rock (magma
or lava) cools, the type of rock which is produced depends
on two main factors: the chemical makeup of the molten
rock, and the speed with which the rock cools. Granite and
rhyolite have essentially the same chemical composition,
but are made up of crystals of different sizes. The larger
crystals of a granite are the result when a body of magma
cools very slowly below the surface. A more fine-grained
rhyolite results when the magma cools rapidly at or near
the surface. When a granite is melted and allowed to cool
rapidly, a rhyolite will result.

Feedback Letter

From:

Russell Reed

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Evolution
breaks a simple science law that everything complex breaks
down and not the other way around.So Evolution can't of
happen.

Response

From:

PZ Myers

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Cool. So
development can't happen, either.

Say, how did you type that message without any fingers,
O Undifferentiated & Unfertilized Gamete?

Feedback Letter

From:

Jerry Smith

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Concerning
the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ by Mark
Isaac,

A creationist with whom I am debating claims that your
FAQ is flawed because it includes the "false" claim that
there are thousands of transitional fossils. He also claim
your FAQ contradicts itself by stating in reference to
Gould that transitionals are "relatively rare", and later
stating that there are "several" superb examples.

I am hoping that you will respond by either clarifying
why these statements do not contradict one another or by
conceding that they do and updating the FAQ. Especially, I
would hope that you will either support the claim of
"thousands" of transitional fossils or change the language
to reflect the facts that can be explicitly supported.

Thank you in advance for your help with this matter.

Jerry Smith

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Millions of
species have lived during earth's history, and there are
probably around a hundred thousand described fossils.
"Several" is rare relative to those numbers.

Kathleen Hunt's Transitional Vertebrate
Fossils FAQ lists over three hundred transitional
fossils in the vertebrates alone, and it is far from a
complete list of vertebrate transitionals. She notes that
one of the reasons why transitionals are little know is
that, to paleontologists, they are so prosaic that they are
not worth devoting a lot of time and effort to.

Some of the transitions seen in the fossil record are
gradual transitions between species or genera. Each of
these involves several different fossils and so adds
greatly to the number of transitional fossils. In the case
of hyenids alone, there are hundreds of fossil specimens
linking over a hundred species.

The fossil record for some marine groups, especially
those with hard parts such as molluscs and diatoms, is even
better than the record for vertebrates. Again, gradual
transitions composed of many distinct fossils are not
uncommon. With microfossils, the number of fossil specimens
in a transition can easily get into the millions. Kenneth
Miller, in Finding Darwin's God pp. 44-45, tells of
a continuous record of the diatom Rhizosolenia
spanning almost two million years and including a
speciation event. A smooth transition between foraminifera
genera is described in A
Smooth Fossil Transition: Orbulina, a foram. And of
course, marine fossils are even less glamorous than
vertebrate fossils, so they get even less popular
attention.

Feedback Letter

From:

Bayram Boyraz

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I just want
to learn one thing...You claim that evolution is a fact,
correct me if I am wrong. In science there are two
concepts: 1)Fact 2)Theory

We know what fact is...and I can conlude that Theory
must not be a fact.(and it does not have to be wrong,
either). You say lots of evidence founds supporting
evolution. Then why is it still a "THEORY" but not a
"FACT"? I will be glad if you send your answer to my e-mail
address.

Bye the way, I know what Theory means, and I have no
religion but I believe in a God because it seems much more
logical rather than "believing in" Evolution. And one thing
more, if somebody proofs evolution in a perfect, reasonable
way I am readdy to accept it. I am a person who wants to
learn facts.

Thanks you very much, I am looking forward for your
reply.

Bayram Boyraz Bilkent University Computer Science
Department

Response

From:

Ed Brayton

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Stephen Jay
Gould wrote a brilliant essay on the difference between
facts and theories as the terms are used by scientists.
That essay is reprinted on the web at
Evolution as Fact and Theory. In it Gould explains that
facts and theories are not different steps on a ladder of
truth. A theory does not "become" a fact. Theories explain
facts. And he explains that evolution is both a fact and a
theory, depending on the context. Defined as a change in
allele frequencies in a population over time, evolution is
a fact. We observe this every day and we can measure it. No
one, not even the most ardent creationist, doubts it.
Evolution, as a theory, is the idea that all modern plants
and animals are derived from a common ancestor through the
process of descent with modification. This theory explains
a wide range of facts in a wide range of fields. It
explains why the fossil record appears in the order that it
appears, for example, and it explains the existence of
homologous traits in different species. Theories do not
"become" facts, which is different than saying it isn't
true.

Feedback Letter

From:

Brandon

Comment:

What are
your views on hydrogen/helium conversion and the age of the
age of the universe and short period comets and the age of
the solar system?

Response

From:

Tim Thompson

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

The fusion
of hydrogen into helium is the basic process that provides
stability and energy for main sequence stars (like our
sun). The nuclear physics is well understood, and the
fusion rate as a function of temperature can be derived
from both theory and experiment. This basic physics makes
it abundantly obvious that our sun is roughly 4,600,000,000
years old, and that the oldest stars we can see are on the
order of 14,000,000,000 years old.

As for short period comets, the evidence is certainly
compatible with the theory that there exist populations of
objects which replace old used up comets with fresh new
comets (the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud). The
creationist argument relies on the absolute non-existence
of any such populations, a claim very hard to reconcile
with observations which imply to the contrary.

I have been
poring over your site for the past couple of hours and
enjoyed it immensely - thanks to Scientific American's
website for its link to you!

I find it interesting that Creationists talk about their
"Theory of Creation" as if it's the only one. Christians
aren't the only ones to come up with a creation myth. Every
religion has a creation myth, since curiousity about where
we came from is one of the reasons why religions exist, so
have they ever tried to determine whether the Christian
creation theory is more logical than those of other
religions? In the end, they can't, because all creation
myths are based on faith and ancient wild guesses from
people who originally thought the world was flat, so
therefore there is no logic.

Evolution science has proven the existence of evolution
from so many angles that that only ignorance and sheer
denial keeps the need for such a web page necessary.
Unfortunately it appears that this site will be open for a
long time.

Feedback Letter

From:

Sven

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Hello
t.o.-folks,

I have to comments on the new article by Mike Dunford
with the title ''A Reply to "Talk.Origins: Deception by
Omission" ''.

First, an additional comment on the author from
trueorigins, J.A.Fernandez. I cite from the first papagraph
of his essay:

''Although TO states that it is a "forum for
discussion"- presumably unbiased-much evidence testifies to
the contrary. I've been observing the TO site from the
sidelines for quite some time [...]'' This paragraph
strongly suggest that J. A. Fernandez made the same blunder
as many others - he confused the Usenet discussion group
with the TO archive! (note in the first sentence 'forum for
discussion' and in the second only 'site'; this also
becomes quite clear in the following where he only adresses
the archive) This means that he is simply attacking a straw
man, if willful or not is beyond my knowledge.

Second, Mike Dunford states (concerning the citations of
Fernandez from Frequently
Asked Questions and Their Answers): ''In all seven
cases, Fernandez omits the links to the in-depth responses.
Nowhere does he ever indicate that an omission has been
made [...]'' This is not totally correct. Before discussing
the FAQ, Fernandez writes: ''On February 13, 2002 this site
had 24 questions, with brief answers and links to "relevant
files." '' So he does admit that there _are_ links, which
makes his omission of them even more dishonest in my
opinion - although a reader with an open mind (if there are
some on the trueorigin site) perphaps would bother to check
if there are links because of this short note of Fernandez
about them.

I would appreciate if my comments would lead to some
minor changes in Mike Dunfords article.

Regards,

Sven Feuerbacher

Feedback Letter

From:

Richard Milton

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

In the "debates" section of
your FAQ, you refer to an
email debate between myself and Jim Foley. You describe
me as a "creationist." This is emphatically false and I
take very strong exception to your attempting to discredit
purely scientific arguments in this way. I must ask you to
delete the word "creationist" as the earliest opportunity.
If you wish to describe me, I am a professional science
writer.

Yours sincerely, Richard Milton

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

We have
deleted the offending description, as you requested.

Feedback Letter

From:

William E. Harris

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

If mammals
and man have about 3.1 billion DNA base pairs compared to
E. coli (2 million) and we imagine progress from single
cell animals to the present from the Cambrian period
600,000,000 years ago, then we must conclude that 5 base
pairs are added each year to each line of mammals. That
means in the 5000 years of recorded history, 25,000 base
pairs must have been added to each ancestral line. Going
back to our ancestors in Mesopotamia 5000 years ago, our
ancestral line must have added 25,000 base pairs. If we
assume 500 base pairs for an average gene, then 50
additional genes must have been added to every living
mammalian or human line during recorded history. This
obviously did not happen? Is something wrong the the math
or what?

Response

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

The assumption that change in the size of the genome is
linear with time is wrong. There are a variety of genetic
changes which result in an increased genome size, ranging
from insertions of one to a few bases through duplication
of entire chromosomes to complete duplication of the entire
genome through polyploidy. These are discrete events that
do not necessarily come evenly spaced in time.

Wesley

Feedback Letter

From:

martino

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

i'm trying
to figure out if murder is legal and why?

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

I'm
wondering why you need to ask...

Feedback Letter

From:

Al Stoops

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

There is a
misprint, I believe, in the November 1996 talk.origins Post
of the Month "Evolution and the
Qur'an" by Ali Arshad. I was confused until I checked
another source. In 15:28-29 the work "slim" should probably
be "slime". I checked
an online translation of the Qur'an which gives this
verse thus: Surely I am going to create a mortal of the
essence of black mud fashioned in shape.

"Mud" is closer to "slime" than to "slim," yes?

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Yes, this
appears to be a typographical error. Thank you for the
correction.

Feedback Letter

Comment:

From FAQ:
What is the purpose of talk.origins? The purpose of
talk.origins is to provide a forum for discussion of issues
related to biological and physical origins. See the
talk.origins Welcome FAQ, the Archive welcome file and the
Talk.Origins Archive's Must-Read FAQs.

It seems that this is not the purpose of your web site.
It seems to try to disclaim creationism, not provide a fair
forum. No offense. I have a friend who is a Christian. I am
told that 2 peter 2, 1-3 says: "that in the last days false
teachers will introduce destructive lies among the people.
Their purpose is to bring God's truth into disrepute and to
exploit believers by telling them made-up and imagined
stories." This prophecy, it seems, is coming true. I don't
find that enough evidence supports evolution. No, I'm not
completely ignorant. :o But NUMEROUS other prophecies from
this bible have apparently come true and the book has a ton
of evidence going for it. I have heard of many books
disclaiming evolution. When I look for a site trying to
help me find evidence for it, there are many sites that
shoot me down again. I would like some irrefutable evidence
that completely disclaims creationism. Your site doesn't
seem to disclaim it. I haven't seen anyone do that. It's
weird. Thank you for your time. A.T.

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Ah, but this
is not talk.origins.
Talk.origins is a USEnet newsgroup which carries a
discussion forum about origins. This is the Talk.Origins
Archive, a web site archiving articles about topics that
frequently arise in talk.origins. This web site does have a
bias, and that bias is towards mainstream science.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Hi. I have a
fairly strong criticism that relates to one of the FAQ
answers. In section 3 on evolution and God, Q5 asks Does
evolution deny the existence of God?

Part of your answer is that there is no reason why God
may not have had a guiding hand behind evolution. You later
say that until there is a test to separate chance and God
this interpretation is valid within evolution.

This answer appears to suggest that God may have
DIRECTED evolution. Furthermore you state above this
section that "evolution cannot say exactly why common
descent chose the paths that it did". This appears to grant
God a possible role in choosing evolutionary paths.

I strongly disagree with this.

My understanding is that the theory of evolution as it
pertains to the origin of species is an attempt to explain
speciation in terms of forces within the natural world.
That is why Darwin spoke of NATURAL selection of variants
within a population. He of course didn't know the origin of
variation within a population but he assumed it to be
natural, not supernatural. We have confirmed his assumption
since we now know that it is caused by DNA sequence
differences which are in turn caused by the segregation of
gene alleles, recombination, DNA replication errors,
transposons etc, i.e. processes that fall within the realm
of physics. Thus evolution as defined by Darwin and modern
biology excludes any guiding hand, or interventionist God
except perhaps in setting the laws of physics in the first
place and I don't think is the interpretation you are
proposing. I would argue therefor that the concept of
evolution, as biologists understand it is mutually
exclusive to God having a guiding hand in our origins.
Furthermore, since natural causes appear sufficient to
account for species origins I do not see why any
supernatural factor need be introduced as an
alternative.

Instead of stating that until scientists can distinguish
acts of God from chance, God is valid within evolution, it
should be said that "with every addition to the vast pile
of evidence supporting evolution, the chance that a God has
had any say becomes more and more remote".

Cheers, Marcus Heisler. (postdoc and Caltech)

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

It doesn't
particularly matter whether or not evolution is considered
to be determined by God or by random chance and selection.
All that theistic evolutionists require is that God is
involved to bring about a result in keeping with his plan.
From the perspective of the scientist, this makes no
difference whatsoever. It doesn't change the methodologies,
or the way hypotheses are generated, for the simple reason
that the actions of God are no more predictable than the
physical processes they underlie.

Darwin did not exclude intervention by God, so much as
making it unexplanatory. In his discussion with Asa Gray,
who did argue for God's providential intervention, Darwin
pointed out that trying to make predictions about evolution
on the basis of a concept of God was unnecessary and prone
to error. But there is scope for those who wish to to
include a role for God.

We do not intend to imply that God directed evolution in
ways which can be distinguished from chance or ordinary
natural process. However, there is no reason to suggest on
scientific grounds that God was not involved, either.